Moscow has right to suspend NATO transit to Afghanistan across its territory - MP

NATO's decision to suspend cooperation with Russia gives Moscow the right to suspend NATO transit to Afghanistan across Russian territory, Federation Council Defense and Security Committee Chairman Viktor Ozerov said.

"NATO is transporting armaments, military hardware and servicemen to Afghanistan across our territory. If our cooperation comes to a halt, we will have the right to suspend this transit, and the alliance will have to find other routes," Ozerov told Interfax on Wednesday. ...

I think everyone can agree that international law and treaties should not be completely jettisoned?

Budapest Memo was violated by Ukraine and US and UK, when they supported the violent coup that overthrew its democratically elected government and completely changed the politics of the nation. (Even if the coup were on one level valid - due to Yanukovych's corruption.)

On the other hand, Crimea declared independence, and so Russia did not violate the Budapest Memorandum. What really pisses off the West is that Russia made sure Crimea could hold a vote and declare independence - if Ukraine could have, it would have stopped Crimea from doing so. But still, it was Crimea's decision, a democratic one.

The most you can accuse Russia of is ensuring that a democratic decision could be reached. Whereas the US/UK sponsored a non-democratic, violent coup.

Quoting: Sun_dancer

No, Russia was the one that broke the Budapest Memo. First by using economic coercion against Ukraine to prevent Yanukovych from signing the free trade agreement with the EU.

Then Russia broke it again by violating Ukraine's territorial integrity - sending troops in Crimea, deposing the governor of Crimea and replacing him with a puppet who then organized the referendum. Then annexing Crimea.

And your shilling for Russia is so fucking obvious....

Quoting: Polemarchos

What economic sanctions did Russia use, and how did they violate the Budapest Memorandum? Do you mean Russia proposing a favorable trade deal with Ukraine constitutes the use or threatened use of force against Ukraine's political independence? WTF? And the Budapest Memorandum basically just copies international law - it is a violation to use force against any country's political indepenedenc. See Article 2(4) of UN Charter at [link to www.un.org] .

So are you saying everytime US proposes favorable trade terms on conditions, it is violating international law? Or is there some special rule that requires Russia to give favorable trade terms to those hostile to it?

Now by the time anything happened in Crimea, the US/UK had already violated the Budapest Memorandum, as had the Ukrainian government itself when it seized power by force. So when you have a contract, and one party violates it, the other party need no longer comply. For example: if you have a lease for an apartment, and the landlord (in violation of the lease) kicks you out, you no longer must pay rent. This is obvious.

But beyond that, where is your evidence that Russia violated Ukraine's territorial integrity? "Territorial integrity" does not mean what you seem to think - see [link to www.princeton.edu] .

Like I said, Russia did support Crimea's ability to hold a referendum. You can make an argument that this violated Ukraine's territorial integrity but I don't buy it, since the only threatened use of force was against Ukraine stopping the democratic vote. In this regard, I would compare Kosovo, where NATO also used the threat of force to permit Kosovo to declare independence, and this was found to be legal by the International Court of Justice.

Quoting: Sun_dancer

Russia threatened Ukraine to punish it economically if it signs the free trade agreement with the EU. By placing trade restrictions. These threats/hints started in early and mid 2013, long before any Maidan.

Whatever happened in Maidan it had no impact on the Budapest Memorandum since it was Ukraine's internal problem.

Russia used the events in Maidan to activate and implement a long prepared plan to grab Crimea. It's clear even for kindergarden kids.

Russia violated Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity by moving troops outside their bases in Crimea, surrounding Ukraine army bases in Crimea, taking over ships, blockading naval bases and all sorts of other things. And ofcourse making it possible for Crimea to secede. Then by annexing Crimea.

VoiceOfRussia: Over 51% Ukrainians disagree with change of power in the country - poll

Title a bit misleading, should read only 49% support the change.

"According to the poll results, 31% of respondents said they wholeheartedly supported the change of power in Kiev in February, 18% would be likely to support it, 16% would be unlikely to support it, 18% of those interviewed strongly criticized these events, and 18% were undecided.

...

"GfK Ukraine said in a press release that 29% of Ukrainians believe their country is moving in the right direction today (7% in February), and 42% of those polled criticized the path recently chosen by Ukraine (70% in February)."

What economic sanctions did Russia use, and how did they violate the Budapest Memorandum? Do you mean Russia proposing a favorable trade deal with Ukraine constitutes the use or threatened use of force against Ukraine's political independence? WTF? And the Budapest Memorandum basically just copies international law - it is a violation to use force against any country's political indepenedenc. See Article 2(4) of UN Charter at [link to www.un.org] .

So are you saying everytime US proposes favorable trade terms on conditions, it is violating international law? Or is there some special rule that requires Russia to give favorable trade terms to those hostile to it?

Now by the time anything happened in Crimea, the US/UK had already violated the Budapest Memorandum, as had the Ukrainian government itself when it seized power by force. So when you have a contract, and one party violates it, the other party need no longer comply. For example: if you have a lease for an apartment, and the landlord (in violation of the lease) kicks you out, you no longer must pay rent. This is obvious.

But beyond that, where is your evidence that Russia violated Ukraine's territorial integrity? "Territorial integrity" does not mean what you seem to think - see [link to www.princeton.edu] .

Like I said, Russia did support Crimea's ability to hold a referendum. You can make an argument that this violated Ukraine's territorial integrity but I don't buy it, since the only threatened use of force was against Ukraine stopping the democratic vote. In this regard, I would compare Kosovo, where NATO also used the threat of force to permit Kosovo to declare independence, and this was found to be legal by the International Court of Justice.

Quoting: Sun_dancer

Russia threatened Ukraine to punish it economically if it signs the free trade agreement with the EU. By placing trade restrictions. These threats/hints started in early and mid 2013, long before any Maidan.

Quoting: Polemarchos

Even if I were to agree with you about "punishment", which is far from clear, refusing to do business with someone in no way violates international law, or the Budapest Memorandum. On the other hand, the sanctions US has against Iran and Cuba, I do think those are unlawful, since they also require other countries to impose sanctions, and they kill children.

Whatever happened in Maidan it had no impact on the Budapest Memorandum since it was Ukraine's internal problem.

Quoting: Polemarchos

Sorry, when foreigners sponsor, train and support violent mobs that overthrow the government - that violates international law. Of course it is also "Ukraine's internal problem".

Russia used the events in Maidan to activate and implement a long prepared plan to grab Crimea. It's clear even for kindergarden kids.

Quoting: Polemarchos

Having contingency plans also does not violate international law. As you may recall, Crimea was taken from Russia by Communist dictate. Crimea has often wanted to return to Russia - just read up on Crimean history from 1991-2014 (and not just on Wikipedia, which is a joke when it comes to any controversial topic.)

Russia violated Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity by moving troops outside their bases in Crimea, surrounding Ukraine army bases in Crimea, taking over ships, blockading naval bases and all sorts of other things. And ofcourse making it possible for Crimea to secede. Then by annexing Crimea.

Quoting: Polemarchos

Of course there is debate about who certain forces were. I have no doubt that not just Russia, but Crimean authorities, have long been preparing for that day. Already in 2008 a poll conducted by the Razumkov Centre determined 63.8 percent of Crimeans would like for Crimea to “secede from Ukraine and join Russia.” It has been a long-standing desire - one that dates back to the day in 1991 when Crimea unexpectedly found itself as part of Ukraine instead of Russia, where it belonged.

That's why, unlike you, I don't automatically disbelieve claims that these "self-defense forces" were not Russian. Did Russia supply their equipment? I don't know, I do know that I have been to many military supply stores where you can get basically everything they were wearing. Maybe Russia gave them equipment too - I don't know and I don't care.

In terms of blocking naval bases, yes, it was a brief blockade. Already on Feb. 27, shortly after the coup, the Crimean Parliament decided to declare independence from Ukraine, and asked Russia for assistance. Some assistance was provided to ensure the vote went smoothly and Ukraine did not prevent it. Once can argue whether technically this assistance violated international law, since Crimea was unable to take these defensive measures itself. The argument would be: the moment Crimea declared itself independent, on February 27, it was no longer part of Ukraine, and Ukraine's ships were trespassing on Crimean waters. Crimea asked them to leave; when they refused, Russia blockaded them at Crimea's request.

Instead of focusing on such small possible slights, which rectify a major and actual harm inflicted on the Crimean people when they were forced into Ukraine, why not focus on what US/NATO is doing in Syria, Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq, Somalia, etc.? Because what they do is infinitely worse, yet they are the most hypocritical ranters and hyperventilators ....

As long as west is continying poking and provoking Russia to commence first shot, then at some point YES, we will have GREAT WAR!

This will not be like Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan.

US mainland will be war zone also!

At what cost? For what?

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 55958448

for full pouches of banksters, according to Georgia stone slabs 500 millions people is enough to provide work and foods for khazar elite, the rest can be culled according to khazar planners. And robots can subsitute even majority of those 500 millions, perspectively only khazar banksters and robots will live on Earth.

What economic sanctions did Russia use, and how did they violate the Budapest Memorandum? Do you mean Russia proposing a favorable trade deal with Ukraine constitutes the use or threatened use of force against Ukraine's political independence? WTF? And the Budapest Memorandum basically just copies international law - it is a violation to use force against any country's political indepenedenc. See Article 2(4) of UN Charter at [link to www.un.org] .

So are you saying everytime US proposes favorable trade terms on conditions, it is violating international law? Or is there some special rule that requires Russia to give favorable trade terms to those hostile to it?

Now by the time anything happened in Crimea, the US/UK had already violated the Budapest Memorandum, as had the Ukrainian government itself when it seized power by force. So when you have a contract, and one party violates it, the other party need no longer comply. For example: if you have a lease for an apartment, and the landlord (in violation of the lease) kicks you out, you no longer must pay rent. This is obvious.

But beyond that, where is your evidence that Russia violated Ukraine's territorial integrity? "Territorial integrity" does not mean what you seem to think - see [link to www.princeton.edu] .

Like I said, Russia did support Crimea's ability to hold a referendum. You can make an argument that this violated Ukraine's territorial integrity but I don't buy it, since the only threatened use of force was against Ukraine stopping the democratic vote. In this regard, I would compare Kosovo, where NATO also used the threat of force to permit Kosovo to declare independence, and this was found to be legal by the International Court of Justice.

Quoting: Sun_dancer

Russia threatened Ukraine to punish it economically if it signs the free trade agreement with the EU. By placing trade restrictions. These threats/hints started in early and mid 2013, long before any Maidan.

Quoting: Polemarchos

Even if I were to agree with you about "punishment", which is far from clear, refusing to do business with someone in no way violates international law, or the Budapest Memorandum. On the other hand, the sanctions US has against Iran and Cuba, I do think those are unlawful, since they also require other countries to impose sanctions, and they kill children.

Whatever happened in Maidan it had no impact on the Budapest Memorandum since it was Ukraine's internal problem.

Quoting: Polemarchos

Sorry, when foreigners sponsor, train and support violent mobs that overthrow the government - that violates international law. Of course it is also "Ukraine's internal problem".

Russia used the events in Maidan to activate and implement a long prepared plan to grab Crimea. It's clear even for kindergarden kids.

Quoting: Polemarchos

Having contingency plans also does not violate international law. As you may recall, Crimea was taken from Russia by Communist dictate. Crimea has often wanted to return to Russia - just read up on Crimean history from 1991-2014 (and not just on Wikipedia, which is a joke when it comes to any controversial topic.)

Russia violated Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity by moving troops outside their bases in Crimea, surrounding Ukraine army bases in Crimea, taking over ships, blockading naval bases and all sorts of other things. And ofcourse making it possible for Crimea to secede. Then by annexing Crimea.

Quoting: Polemarchos

Of course there is debate about who certain forces were. I have no doubt that not just Russia, but Crimean authorities, have long been preparing for that day. Already in 2008 a poll conducted by the Razumkov Centre determined 63.8 percent of Crimeans would like for Crimea to “secede from Ukraine and join Russia.” It has been a long-standing desire - one that dates back to the day in 1991 when Crimea unexpectedly found itself as part of Ukraine instead of Russia, where it belonged.

That's why, unlike you, I don't automatically disbelieve claims that these "self-defense forces" were not Russian. Did Russia supply their equipment? I don't know, I do know that I have been to many military supply stores where you can get basically everything they were wearing. Maybe Russia gave them equipment too - I don't know and I don't care.

In terms of blocking naval bases, yes, it was a brief blockade. Already on Feb. 27, shortly after the coup, the Crimean Parliament decided to declare independence from Ukraine, and asked Russia for assistance. Some assistance was provided to ensure the vote went smoothly and Ukraine did not prevent it. Once can argue whether technically this assistance violated international law, since Crimea was unable to take these defensive measures itself. The argument would be: the moment Crimea declared itself independent, on February 27, it was no longer part of Ukraine, and Ukraine's ships were trespassing on Crimean waters. Crimea asked them to leave; when they refused, Russia blockaded them at Crimea's request.

Instead of focusing on such small possible slights, which rectify a major and actual harm inflicted on the Crimean people when they were forced into Ukraine, why not focus on what US/NATO is doing in Syria, Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq, Somalia, etc.? Because what they do is infinitely worse, yet they are the most hypocritical ranters and hyperventilators ....

Quoting: Sun_dancer

And I would like to add that the Republic of Crimea was already a "some independent entity" from Ukraine and now is gone. So, Polemarchos put your soul in pace.

Even if I were to agree with you about "punishment", which is far from clear, refusing to do business with someone in no way violates international law, or the Budapest Memorandum.

Quoting: Sun_dancer

Actually by threatening economic punishment if Ukraine exercised its sovereign right to sign an economic agreement with the EU Russia broke Article 3 of the memorandum.

In Article 3 the signatories vowed to: "refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind".

Sorry, when foreigners sponsor, train and support violent mobs that overthrow the government - that violates international law. Of course it is also "Ukraine's internal problem".

Quoting: Sun_dancer

A revolution, an overthrow of government or even a civil war doesn't cancel a state's sovereignty and border integrity. The Budapest Memorandum doesn't have any article or annex stating that its provisions become null if a Ukrainian president or government is overthrown in this or that manner.

That's why, unlike you, I don't automatically disbelieve claims that these "self-defense forces" were not Russian. Did Russia supply their equipment? I don't know, I do know that I have been to many military supply stores where you can get basically everything they were wearing. Maybe Russia gave them equipment too - I don't know and I don't care.

Quoting: Sun_dancer

Gun ownership is very limited/strict in Europe. There are no military supply stores where one can purchase latest AKs and kevlars. And those guys also had even heavy machineguns.

In terms of blocking naval bases, yes, it was a brief blockade. Already on Feb. 27, shortly after the coup, the Crimean Parliament decided to declare independence from Ukraine, and asked Russia for assistance. Some assistance was provided to ensure the vote went smoothly and Ukraine did not prevent it. Once can argue whether technically this assistance violated international law, since Crimea was unable to take these defensive measures itself. The argument would be: the moment Crimea declared itself independent, on February 27, it was no longer part of Ukraine, and Ukraine's ships were trespassing on Crimean waters. Crimea asked them to leave; when they refused, Russia blockaded them at Crimea's request.

Russia used the events in Maidan to activate and implement a long prepared plan to grab Crimea. It's clear even for kindergarden kids.

Russia violated Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity by moving troops outside their bases in Crimea, surrounding Ukraine army bases in Crimea, taking over ships, blockading naval bases and all sorts of other things. And ofcourse making it possible for Crimea to secede. Then by annexing Crimea.

Quoting: Sun_dancer

Ukrainean assassin Krustchew stole Crimea from Russia and now the Ukrainean unfairness was amended, and in a fair way, via free referendum. In 1954 Krustchew did not ask anybody, there was no referendum.Btw If Moldova would be attached back to Romania by referendum, would your foul rhetorics be the same?

And I would like to add that the Republic of Crimea was already a "some independent entity" from Ukraine and now is gone. So, Polemarchos put your soul in pace.

Gone... that's it! End of story.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 7901784

I am at peace. I know Putin will plunge the world in WW3.

Quoting: Polemarchos

my previous post was directed at you Polyfartos, not to Sun Dancer, to whom I apologize.Ukrainean assassin Krustchew stole Crimea from Russia and now the Ukrainean unfairness was amended, and in a fair way, via free referendum. In 1954 Krustchew did not ask anybody, there was no referendum.Btw If Moldova would be attached back to Romania by referendum, would your foul rhetorics be the same?Unless you are after fresh lobotomy, you must know that it is not Putin who presses the world over the abyss rim, but the khazar greedy pimps who are pimping US political scene. Or are you one of them?

Even if I were to agree with you about "punishment", which is far from clear, refusing to do business with someone in no way violates international law, or the Budapest Memorandum.

Quoting: Sun_dancer

Actually by threatening economic punishment if Ukraine exercised its sovereign right to sign an economic agreement with the EU Russia broke Article 3 of the memorandum.

In Article 3 the signatories vowed to: "refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind".

Quoting: Polemarchos

What does "economic coercion" mean under international law, and what did Russia do specifically to "economically coerce" Ukraine?

You seem to use the word "punishment" as if it means "economic coercion", but there are not the same terms. "Economic coercion" is a specific legal term. Unless you know what it means, you are in no position to accuse anyone of doing this.

And what specific acts do you contend were "economic coercion" (as defined by international law, not as you may imagine it is defined not knowing anything about it)?

Sorry, when foreigners sponsor, train and support violent mobs that overthrow the government - that violates international law. Of course it is also "Ukraine's internal problem".

Quoting: Sun_dancer

A revolution, an overthrow of government or even a civil war doesn't cancel a state's sovereignty and border integrity. The Budapest Memorandum doesn't have any article or annex stating that its provisions become null if a Ukrainian president or government is overthrown in this or that manner.

Quoting: Polemarchos

I was referring to the principle of international law, encapsulated in Article 2(4) of the UN Charter and section 2 of the Budapest Memo, to "refrain from the ... use of force against the ... political independence of Ukraine".

If one country hires an armed mob to take over the capital of a country and install a puppet regime, I would consider it a violation of those provisions. And to a large extent, that is what happened in Kiev. If the US/EU would have stayed completely out of it, there would have been no violation; but they did not.

That's why, unlike you, I don't automatically disbelieve claims that these "self-defense forces" were not Russian. Did Russia supply their equipment? I don't know, I do know that I have been to many military supply stores where you can get basically everything they were wearing. Maybe Russia gave them equipment too - I don't know and I don't care.

Quoting: Sun_dancer

Gun ownership is very limited/strict in Europe. There are no military supply stores where one can purchase latest AKs and kevlars. And those guys also had even heavy machineguns.

Quoting: Polemarchos

Different guys had different equipment. But Crimean parliament / government is not limited by military supply stores - I was just giving an example since many commentators had focused on their uniforms and their training (well every Ukrainian man has military training - until recently Ukraine had conscription).

Some of the guys were clearly Russian military, but these guys were legally on Crimean land. As you know, Russia has a lot of actual military bases there. Some probably went off base when not allowed to by the coup government, but if one takes the view that the coup government is illegitimate, who cares what they say.

Then we also have requests for Russian help from both Crimean parliament and the constitutional President of Ukraine.

I would not worry about legal ramifications of this if I were Russia. Many many worse things happen in the world and the perpetrators are not punished.

In terms of blocking naval bases, yes, it was a brief blockade. Already on Feb. 27, shortly after the coup, the Crimean Parliament decided to declare independence from Ukraine, and asked Russia for assistance. Some assistance was provided to ensure the vote went smoothly and Ukraine did not prevent it. Once can argue whether technically this assistance violated international law, since Crimea was unable to take these defensive measures itself. The argument would be: the moment Crimea declared itself independent, on February 27, it was no longer part of Ukraine, and Ukraine's ships were trespassing on Crimean waters. Crimea asked them to leave; when they refused, Russia blockaded them at Crimea's request.